Happy Hour Roundup

* Magnanimous bipartisan gesture of the day: Mitch McConnell says he's "willing to listen" if the White House is interested in agreeing to a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts.

* Interesting move: Dennis Kucinich fires off a letter to Darrell Issa demanding evidence for his claim that the stimulus is "walking around money," on the grounds that now that Republicans are in the majority, they have a duty to refrain from wreckless and baseless smears.

Historical footnote: The White House wanted Congressional Dems to vote on extending the middle class cuts before the election, on the grounds that it was good politics. But Dem leaders balked. Now we see who was right.

"This is Colleen Thomas, a home health administrator turned physicist who specializes in the science of creation. She is also the "mother" of a race of good aliens here on Earth to defend humans from lizard people. Yes, lizard people!

The tenor if this message is this: if Obama goes to India as planned (though, he's already there) he and all of his "cronies" will be killed by a tsunami. By the good aliens I think?"

Looking forward to all those primary challenges! Maybe they can get more quality folks like Joyce Kaufman to run for office! http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/reports-kaufmann-was-inspiration-for-threats-against-broward-schools.php?ref=fpa

I'm of the personal belief that if the Democrats had addressed the tax cuts before the election, it wouldnt have made a bit of a difference. The momentum was in the favor of Republicans. It's like that anti-gay marriage mess of the 2004 elections - a tornado that u ride out and build after it's over

"Chuck Grassley admits that the repeal of Obamacare doesn't have a prayer of getting through the Senate."

I don't think this in the case of the tea party hicks and hayseeds (and rednecks!) being in for a rude awakening, because many of them if not most know either than repeal can fail, or even expect it to. They just want the folks they worked to elect to go cajones-to-the-wall and try. They'll get a pass for "try and fail", electorally speaking. They won't get a pass for "don't try at all".

@bearclaw: "But if Palinistas want to primary every Republican who supports earmarks, who am I to object? It might even be fun to watch."

They may. Frankly, I'd prefer the clarity of going "earmark" free, in the sense of attaching pet spending projects to otherwise unrelated bills. However, if earmarks are just part of a given budget, doesn't that make them "budget items"?

It seems to me that earmarks often constitute money that gets spent on actual projects with a tangible result, as opposed to the hundreds of millions and even billions of money if the federal budget that seems to evaporate mysteriously. Rather than cut earmarks (3% of the budget), why not just cut the entire budget by 3% across all programs and agencies?

I generally agree with what Lewison says about the tax cuts. Kent Conrad is a corporate hack. Of course, the GOP could care less about extending and making permanent the middle class cuts, they are only concerned about their base – the top 2%). Consequently, de-coupling the cuts isn’t to their advantage. Obama is letting himself get checkmated .
At best, there is a remote possibility that the upper end cuts get punted to Jan 2013 and becomes for the Dems a hot populist political issue during election season. The GOP won’t dare to defend these cuts to be made permanent during a presidential election.
In the meantime, hundreds of billions are added to the deficit, without any significant increase in jobs or lowering the jobless rate. In two years Obama would still be presiding over a struggling (to say the least) economy. I don’t see a way that he is re-elected if things stay as they are or get worse. This is an issue where he can’t cave, else I won’t even bother to vote in 2012.

I'm with you on the repeal argument. I know of no Teabaggers that actually think it would get out of the Senate or survive a veto. I'm fascinated by peoples perceptions of us Teabaggers however.

Earmarks are corrupting for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the inducement to vote for bad legislation. Could we agree that bad legislation should be minimized? As far as the 3%, I think earmarks end up increasing appropriations that are wasteful and increase the budget overall. Earmarks make it easier for legislators to accept baseline budgeting for example, and a refusal to properly, line by line vet a budget. And if the Executive branch spends 97% without Congressional direction (earmarks), there really is no supervision of spending anyway.

"Sen. Conrad: Extend All Tax Cuts; Time to Get 'Serious' About Deficit"

Journalistic Malpractice Case #43636565463

"repeal of Obamacare doesn't have a prayer of getting through the Senate."

As I've said on earlier threads, the neocon/lunatic/TP email lists I'm on have seamlessly shifted rhetoric from "repeal!" to "defund!". That is, in between posts analyzing whether or not our President is indeed a "Natural Born Citizen," which of course he is not. He is an alien Muslim from planet Gargakkkkkkkkkkk.

GOP Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa) stated the obvious - the democrats can now block a repeal of Obama's health care bill in the Senate.

And the democrats control the agenda, so the issue doesn't even have to come up.

So the Republicans have another two years to gather support for repeal. If Obama does not agree to a compromise, it will be a campaign issue. The Republicans need to defeat Obama and gain 13 additional seats in the Senate in order to REPEAL. That is possible.

Your argument about earmarks makes no sense. They DO NOT increase the budget. They allow congresspeople to mark funds already committed to be spent in a specific way on a specific project. And oftentimes, those funds are earmarked in coordination with the governor and legislature back home, though not always.

"I wasn't aware that simply thinking things were true made them true."

But if thinking about what should be real does not create reality, if that were no longer true, I'd be out of business and everyone knows that would be bad for the economy. Point is, people thinking their fantasies create reality is good for business. The consumer confidence index, that is what they call it.

All, thanks for pointing out my misstatement. Earmarks increase spending, appropriations, because they are often used as inducements to vote for legislation that might not otherwise get a specific legislators vote. For example, vote for this healthcare grapple Senator Sanders, and we'll allocate 20 billion to pay off your base, er, build community health clinics. Now, not only is the HCR bill even more expensive, future appropriations are going to be higher because of this bribe, I mean inducement to Defendant, I mean Senator Sanders. See, hopefully thatclears that up. I appreciate your tolerance and patience.

If Teabagger is a sexual act (or slur, if your so inclined), then how does it help to convince said Teabaggers that voting/supporting your side is the smart thing to do? Is it used to insult Teabaggers? If so, how does that increase support for non-Teabagging priorities?

Do you think the health care reform plan being considered by President Obama and Congress creates “death panels” which have the authority to subjectively determine whether or not a gravely ill or injured person should receive health care based on their “level of productivity in society”?

Here are the numbers on how Republicans answered that question:

Yes: 26
No: 43
Not sure: 31

So a startling majority of 57% of Republicans either believes or is uncertain about the veracity of the “death panel” claim, versus only 43% of GOPers who don’t beliveve it.

Stop it, dropping your nut sack into someone else's mouth is not a slur. No one is saying being a tea bagger is bad because of your sexual practices. It is bad, but not for that. Sorry being a bagger is bad, but not sexually. No that didn't come out right either. Look, just stay funny, that is the main thing.

Government isn't giving the money back that it takes? Does that mean Republicans think the government is running a surplus?

Posted by DDAWD|November 10,2010
-------

Another howler. How much was it---60 billion or so---of money marked for the rebuilding of Iraq that simply went missing? Did the government give the money back or are they running a surplus?

"Recipients of 352 federal stimulus contracts, grants and loans have failed to report how they spent the money, the status of their projects or how many jobs were funded, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)."--- USA TODAY

No wonder the stimulus failed.

No one is disputing the government's ability to waste money or simply make it disappear. The issue is whether you should take the word of politicians that if you allow them to impose an energy tax, they'll turn right around and send it back to you.

Bearclaw, I wasnt complaining about any potential insult directed at us TeaBaggers by use of said word, I was asking if its use was conducive to changing peoples minds.

And to be quite frank, us TeaBaggers have no problem with the word, much like African- Americans do not mind non African- Americans using the "N" word. I cannot tell you how appreciative most African-Americans are when I liberally (see what I did there) pepper my conversation with it. Good times.

If a person is going to base their opinions on a subject or cast their vote one way or another because some stranger randomly hurt their feelings or called them a name, etc., then, quite frankly, they deserve to be called worse than "teabagger".

The most important thing for the future of this nation right now is to get Obama out of office and elect 13 more Republicans to the Senate in order to get ride of the health care plan.

The future economic health of this nation depends on it.

Obama did not draw up a good plan, and it is not paid for.

A compromise bill would have produced a much better bill, less expensive and with less government. Right now, we all have to work to get rid of Obama, get 13 additional Republican Senators elected AND SAVE OUR COUNTRY.

1- Decoupling the middle class and high income tax cut and voting on them separately would have been a winner with the voters, especially pitted Wall St Republicans against innocent homebuyers, unsophisticated towns, non-profits, schools who were "snookered" by Wall St con games now fully coming to light.

2- Publicized that they were boxed into a corner to support TARP because of Secty Paulson and the dramatic drop on Wall St. as a result of no longer having the kind of regulations needed to handle a massive, speculation driven bank run as a result of all the nonsensical Randian, libertarian theology pushed by the banks for over 30 years.

3- Let it be known that Toyota, Nissan, Ford, and BMW as well as GM and Chrysler lobbied for the auto company loans to prevent the nationwide loss of important suppliers, costing thousands of small and mid sized businesses to fold.

4- That the loans to the auto companies will be making a profit that will bring down the deficit.

5- That the deficit has been reduced by the largest year over year average since records began to be kept, even while in the midst of the greatest economic depression since the 1930s.

6- That maintaining and even refining FinReg may well prevent the kind of outrageous speculation and corruption that caused not only the melt-down but the egregious corruption in the mortgage foreclosure crisis (see http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/232611?RS_show_page=0)

7- That the so-called "Obamacare" is already having an impact on lowering medical care costs - bending the cost curves - through technology and joint agreements among doctors, labs, and hospitals to reduce costs. As a result, patients may begin to see lower out of pocket costs within the next year. In addition, some states like CA have opened up their markets and are trying new ways to reduce costs which have yielded significantly lower costs to health insurance buyers.

8 - That the only way to decrease the deficit is to increase taxes on those most able to afford it - Rockefeller's creed: for "those who have gained so much, so much is owed." It's morality and ethics. Many of the early 20th C industrial companies built and leased homes to their workers because they realized the enormous benefits to the company through worker loyalty and the benefit to the community.

9- Put forth a plan to move the country forward: an aggressive industrial plan to bring manufacturing back to the US; development of a private-public partnership to constantly retrain employees and revise unemployment along Germany's model; and completely rewrite the tax code to not just lower taxes but to make them more fair for small and new businesses.

Of course, Dems failed to do any of these things because they either lack imagination or because they're scared. As a result, they cede the argument to the Repubs. Dumb!

And, as far as I'm concerned, it is an insult only because it is a clear demonstration of the ignorance of the teabaggers that call themselves teabaggers as I am quite certain that an overwhelming majority of them would find it insulting if they knew what it meant.

Well, I personally don't find it insulting - I find it absolutely hilarious in a very 6th grade sort of way - but then again I'm not a TeaParty person. I guess you should probably ask one of the many baggers that I've seen lose their cookies when called that. For example:

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

Well, I vote conservative so yeah, but I'm an operative. I'm on the inside manipulating the press, like Greg Sargent, so they give us(TeaBaggers, the illusion of a grassroots organization) undue coverage to influence the low info voters.

Ummmm.....well, just like the time I about fell off my chair when a clueless professor in one of my classes called attendence with "Seymour? Seymour? Seymour Butts?"....the idea of some guy, sitting on his medicare-provided scooter, ranting against "big government" and holding a picture of Obama as Hitler, proudly calling himself a teabagger while being totally unaware of the slang definition of the word - well, that's just too much.

@schrodingerscat - It's neither, that is if I'm understanding your post/opinion correctly which granted I may not be. However, when it comes to Dems, they have an almost ingrained disability to promote what they believe. It's not "socialism" but fairness and equity - old fashioned values that our parents and grandparents believed in and lived their lives by.

It's the "commonweal" belief that came under attack during the 80s and thereafter, promoted by Wall St in its endless drive for larger and larger profits, regardless of the costs to the overall economy and people's lives.

I'm not against corporate profits - heck, I've worked long hours during my 30+ years to increase them because I belived if the company did well financially the workers would see an increase in their wages. But I have to admit, I'm wondering if that maxim continues to apply any more.

Since the '80s, the ideology of "commonweal" has come to mean less and less as self-gratification has grown more predominate. But is that new ideology of the "self" really good for the people or the country? I posit it is not, especially in a global economy. We must change the paradigm to enable American workers to compete and succeed.

I see none of the required ideas coming out of the TEA/GOP. Demos intuitively understand them but are incapable of articulating them, let alone defending them.

It kind of reminds of HP. In the mid-80s, IBM, the market leader, had one PC. HP had 5 including hand-helds and laptops, but HP was afraid to market them because they feared the market would perceive the company as too far out of the mainstream and not practical enough. So, HP essentially ceded the market place to IBM out of that fear.

Dems, over and over again, continue to do the same thing to Repubs. Dems allow the Repubs to determine the conversation, just as HP did with IBM, and then attempt to catch up.

Anyone with any marketing experienced knows that's a losing game. You grab hold of your best messages first and promote them extensively and force your competitors to defend their position.

Dems could have done so this time round, but they were like HP years ago. Stupid! Even more stupid is not having an industrial policy and vision for the future to display to the American people.

If you read the comments on numerous blogs, just here on WaP, you'll see that most people are angry are angry at the economic condition of the country as a result of the lack of jobs. So, Dems must come up with a solid industrial plan which necessarily means articulating the required changes in our financial markets as well as our tax and funding processes.

I'm confident Repubs will not do so, but can Dems? I don't know. I don't know if they have he spine to overcome their inferiority complex and put forth a bold new idea.

I admire Sir Wingnut. After the banning of the perseverative creatures, after the daparture of those who could not defend their positions, we have Sir McNut. Don Quixote of the Plum Line his Rosinante. I could help argue his positions, but he doesn't need any help.

It's not that the democrats failed to sell their message - its that the American People do not want the democratic agenda

Obama resorted to a bunch of deceptions and lies just to get centrists to vote for him.

Now those centrists are angry that Obama never even tried to do what he said he would. VOTE HIM OUT.

Clearly, the gay agenda presents particular problems for the democrats.

The health care plan is dragging the economy down.

Now the most important thing is the economy - and the democrats have failed the nation miserably. The democras have no economic plan. They are the saddest bunch of creeps who refuse to focus on what THEY did to the economy, the role THEY played in dragging the economy down. The democrats refuse to admit that they did wrong.

I listened to some of his rif on Representative Clyburn and his dilemma inside the Democratic caucus. I did not hear that particular line, but I understand the context. He was also playing clips from former Representative Martin Frost, who was asked why Representative Clyburn might want to keep a leadership position, and he said because you get a car and driver as well as security (seriously, that was Representative Frost's answer to why someone would want to be in House leadership) so I'm guessing that Rush made the crack, with Representative Frost's comments in mind, along with another article he quoted that said Democrat's were trying to come up with another leadership position for Representative Clyburn. Also, he was noticing how ironic it was that all of the white Representatives were trying to demote the first African American in a leaderhip position in the House of Representatives.

Now, this is all moot for you, I expect, as you think Rush Limbaugh is an inveterate racist. So my question is, why ask me? If you think I'm a TeaBagger operative (since there are not grassroots TeaBagger's, just astroturf actors and Freedomworks operatives like me)then aren't we all racist?

"I'm guessing that Rush made the crack, with Representative Frost's comments in mind"

That's bullsh*t and you know it. It's a looooong stretch from having your own security to being Miss Daisy's driver.

That's one thing I've found so strange about conservatives. They are so desperate to be in the club that they are going to defend things like what Limbaugh said. You'd think it would be about the ideology, but it's about being in the club. Hell, TMWN isn't even running for office!

@schrodingerscat: "If a person is going to base their opinions on a subject or cast their vote one way or another because some stranger randomly hurt their feelings or called them a name, etc., then, quite frankly, they deserve to be called worse than 'teabagger'."

It's not about having hurt feelings, I don't think, so much as it discredits any arguments or assertions attached to the gratuitous rudeness. The same goes the other way. I can't imagine a conservative who calls a liberal a "libtard" actually wants to communicate about anything. Libtards and teabaggers and other such appellations are forms of acting out, and reflect the language of folks who don't actually want to convince, or even really communicate.

@DDAWD: "You'd think it would be about the ideology, but it's about being in the club."

That's hardly unique to conservatives. Clubbiness surrounds all sorts of labels--by political affiliation, region, career, etc. I expect I'm not the only conservative who could note a time or two where liberals defend illiberal comments not because of the content, but because of who made them.

@OrangeForces - Pardon me for taking so long to respond, but I just had to watch Jon Stewart on Rachel Maddow tonight.

Now, as to your posited idea that independents against Dems because they did not like Dem policies, polls show that idea is fallacious. Independents, like everyone else in this country, are scared, angry and frustrated. Independents have shifted back back and forth between the parties for at least the last three elections, just as they did during the 19th Century, hoping to find a party that would represent their wishes and dreams.

Regardless of your ideological platform, young college educated voters have shifted more and more to Democrats which means they really could care less about those "biblical" social issues. I think that's a trend with even non-college educated youths. The social
issues of their parents' generation have less meaning for younger voters, who will dominate the next several elections.

Moreover, the new generation of voters, because they are media savvy and have seen what has taken place on Wall St and DC over the last several years, are turning more and more towards "commonweal" attitudes. The growth of young people moving towards social responsibility and community activism astounds me...and gives me hope for the future.

The rest of your comment is nothing more than partisan hype with no facts or attached. It's unfortunate that far too many people fell for the hype rather than seeking out data. But, hey, Father Conklin wouldn't have made it into the history books without the same kind of hype. So go for it.

But don't be surprised in two years that the majority of Americans - independents - reject the Repubs and the majority of young, new educated voters choose Dems again. That is why I and many like me within the business community are pushing the idea of major changes in our system, from fundamental tax policy to the idea of "commonweal." We love our country and our people and know that major changes from the policies of the last 30+ are necessary if this country is going to succeed internationally. We know we cannot go back to the last century and hope to have a thriving economy. The world has changed. And either we accept that change and move forward with new and updated ideas or we get left behind.

I refuse to move backwards or to allow the domination of a corrupt Wall St and political system to dominate the future of our country. And I will continue to use my small voice to push for a more ethical, moral and enlightened business environment that takes the country forward out of the early 20th Century into the full blossom of the 21st Century.

Can I ask you, in all seriousness, why do you explain away the provocative comments by Limbaugh as if it is all a misconception on the part of those of us on the left?

Do you not understand that Rush Limbaugh's pattern of intentionally making provocative and insensitive comments has been well established over more than a decade?

Of course you understand that. You cannot believe that the insensitive nature of his comments were an accident of "context." That is simply not a credible position.

Either you are covering for him because you LIKE racially insensitive humor, or you are being willfully disingenuous because you just like lying to people on the Left. There is no other explanation that I can think of that explains your comments.

So, how do you explain your comments? Is it one of those two? Something else? Can you answer honestly? Speaking for myself, I would respect you a great deal more if you were honest with us when you are asked an honest question.

I have enjoyed a little reparte with you over the last few days, but your post at 9:19pm was thoroughly disappointing. Where is the candor, where did it go? Why did you inject a plainly dishonest comment into a serious discussion? What purpose does it serve you to respond to pragmatic's clearly serious question with a dishonest answer? Will you respond to my serious comment honestly or will you dismiss it like you dismiss Rush Limbaugh's latest provocative insults?

Can I ask you, in all seriousness, why do you explain away the provocative comments by Limbaugh as if it is all a misconception on the part of those of us on the left?

Do you not understand that Rush Limbaugh's pattern of intentionally making provocative and insensitive comments has been well established over more than a decade?

Of course you understand that. You cannot believe that the insensitive nature of his comments were an accident of "context." That is simply not a credible position.

Either you are covering for him because you LIKE racially insensitive humor, or you are being willfully disingenuous because you just like lying to people on the Left. There is no other explanation that I can think of that explains your comments.

So, how do you explain your comments? Is it one of those two? Something else? Can you answer honestly? Speaking for myself, I would respect you a great deal more if you were honest with us when you are asked an honest question.

I have enjoyed a little reparte with you over the last few days, but your post at 9:19pm was thoroughly disappointing. Where is the candor, where did it go? Why did you inject a plainly dishonest comment into a serious discussion? What purpose does it serve you to respond to pragmatic's clearly serious question with a dishonest answer? Will you respond to my serious comment honestly or will you dismiss it like you dismiss Rush Limbaugh's latest provocative insults?

I'm lying that I think my defense of Rush is spurious? I'm lying that I actually know Rush's crack was racist? I'm lying in that I think you think that Rush and I are inveterate racists? Work with me here?

I'm being honest, I don't think Rush is a racist (I don't think I'm a racist either)and though I did not hear him make the particular remark in question, I heard most of the monologue leading up to it. Rush would say he was highlighting absurdity by being absurd. If the Republican caucus tried to muscle out an African-American from a leadership position in the Repbulican caucus, the Democratic party and the left in general would howl at what they think is obvious racism. The Democrats do it and crickits in the media. Now, I don't think the Republican party is racist, so I think a media reaction of crickit's if the Representative Clyburn dust up happened on the Republican side, would be appropriate.

One thing to consider is viewpoint. You, and others on the left, think Limbaugh is a racist, so any statement of a racial nature will be interpreted through the filter of him already being a racist, it reinforces an already held belief. That's why you and others can point to comment after comment that reinforces your already held belief. It's not like this latest episode somehow pushes your viewpoint of Rush into the "he's a racist" category, he was already there.

Now, I don't think he's a racist and though I did not hear this particular comment, since I don't think he's a racist, I feel comfortable in defending Limbaugh from what I think is a false charge. Simple as that, not disingenuous. I also acknowledge that my understanding of racism is probably different from yours. Again, viewpoint.

A vastly overated BCS team, for fun let's say Michigan (although they svck this year) gets smashed by the vastly berated and mocked Boise State (aka.: hicks, rubes, pigskinbaguettes, etc.). And while getting absolutely demolished the Blue of Ann Arbor also lose several dozen(!) of their best players and probably their captain, not just for the season but potentially for good.

What do the entitled, shocked, but jaded fans on campus do? They do all they can do, actually all they've ever known to do, because they themselves have never been in a real game for one minute...they begin again the process of mocking and berating. And they comfort themselves with non-sequiturs and side-peanuts stuff like despising déclassé sportsradio common-taters that had been touting Boise against the BCS powers that be.

And the viciousness, condescension, and delusion is even more crystaline and hive-like.

But it's less satisfying. Why?

Because they realize...Boise...the rubes, just flat-out kicked their sorry a$$e$.

And, what's worse, the rubes couldn't care less what's being said about Boise.

{{{If someone wishes to counter with a faculty-lounge, a community org, an indie-bookstore, or a Local 477 analogy...that'd be great!}}}

From the online Webster's dictionary:
Definition of COMMONWEAL
1- archaic : commonwealth
2: the general welfare
First Known Use of COMMONWEAL
14th century

The print dictionary expands the definition to include "the common good." It's a term used in old and early modern English to describe political policies that expand or agree with the common good - or on the other hand to negate the common good as in against the commonweal.

In the beginnings of our country, policies were determined according to how they matched or coincided with the "commonweal."

Now if you think that early 17th Century Pilgrims and Calvinist Protestants were "socialists" then I'd suggest you have as major educational problem.

As for a bunch of old white people "taking back their nation," beware the new young voting generations. Time is not on your side. Those young people, who have a different worldview, have other and new ideas.

"{{{If someone wishes to counter with a faculty-lounge, a community org, an indie-bookstore, or a Local 477 analogy...that'd be great!}}}"

This may be a more appropriate analogy however since, on an anonymous WaPo blog, the stakes are so low. A Boise - Michigan slaughter has real BCS / revenue consequences. Here, the worst were going to suffer is a string of ALL CAPS and maybe a "Have you no shame sir!" Olbermann butthurt.

Yes, I just wish we had a few more starters who actually grew up in Oregon, but mercenary is the name of the paramilitary game. At least we got rid of the nasty goons from last year. One went to Mississippi State, another went pro, another went we we we all the way home.

@OrangeForces- It's not the short term 3% that matters; it's the long term. That's what has been wrong with both parties. Generally speaking, they both think short term; however, the Dem policies, although badly articulated, are more forward thinking.

Take health care for example - which I know is highly controversial and hated. Nevertheless, all of our OECD and Asian competitors have some sort of national health care program which takes the cost of health care off the balance sheets of companies. As a result, those companies can sell their products much more cheaply. In a competitive market, price is key. If a company does not have to increase its prices to cover the cost of health care, they have a better competitive advantage. Right?

Now think about the best way to begin to control medical care costs. When costs, through a competitive market place, are put onto the consumer, what will they do? Go for the lowest cost and best value, right? That's what Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland and Germany did. Through a national program, using the latest technology and a highly competitive marketplace, they created national health care plans that took the cost of health care off businesses and put it back onto the consumer. That's not socialism; it's the market working to provide the best bang for the buck.

Then, they said we're going to make sure you, the consumer, are not cheated, conned or abused by insurance companies because the insurance companies are going to have to follow strict market rules.

As a result, countries like Switzerland have highly profitable insurance companies as well as much lower costs. And they're able to provide those lower costs because they have huge numbers of customers wherein the underwriting risk is spread out amongst their customer base/population.

If this country can achieve a plan similar as those in other countries, our businesses can become more competitive which means that fewer companies will need to migrate for lower costs.

This is why the Wyden-Bennet bill was so exciting to many of us. It promised a competitive arena for our businesses. Overall, the Dems had a much better goal in mind than the "hell no" Repubs.

Even at the tax level, the Wyden-Greg tax proposal is better regarding deficits and fair, even business competitiveness than the current Repub "borrow and spend" plan.

The country must get over the "now" and start thinking about 20 years from now. Where do we need to be and how do we compete, regarding business and our commonweal, in 20 years?

@OrangeForces - Besides the fact that you seem to be losing your argument based on fallacious facts, I happen to be one of those old white folks.

64 year old white woman, raised as an Air Force brat, wife of Vietnam Vet, descendant of Pilgrims and Revolutionary War fighters, descendant of a colonel decorated by G. Washington, descendant of Civil War vets, grand daughter of a WWI GI, niece of sailor who died in the Pacific during WWII.

Nevertheless, I have a different view than yours because I see and talk to young people all the time who seek as different "commonweal" environment than now exists which is why the latest polls showing them favoring Dems rather than Repubs.

valkayec, I know you are not talking to me, my comments removed counter says 16 for this thread and I have only one troll on the heck no list...Nevertheless,
as I lay me down to sleep,
I'll tap this out,

Here in the Oregon Territory, we love Ron Wyden and Peter DeFazio too. Even Gordon Smith was a mensch when it came to health care. But Wyden/Gregg was dead on arrival.

This is not Switzerland. We suck. That matters. "The country must get over the "now" and start thinking about 20 years from now." piffle. Can I add, we should become peaceful too? Good night.

Orange Forces - "Pain - distribution - the liberals should be responsible for Obama's deficits - and for the loss of jobs from Bill Clinton's Free Trade Deals and his subprime mortgage program."

You need to read a bit more. TV, especially, FOX and MSNBC, have not given a complete narrative of either the deficit or the financial melt down and subprime mortgage program. You can start with the story by Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone that I noted above. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/232611?RS_show_page=0

I've also a few books I can recommend in case your interested in learning more.

You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check http://bit.ly/bandYw .If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

As for a bunch of old white people "taking back their nation," beware the new young voting generations. Time is not on your side. Those young people, who have a different worldview, have other and new ideas.

Posted by: valkayec | November 11, 2010 11:21 PM
-------

Typical liberal wishful-thinking gibberish. The current generation of "old white people" will someday be replaced by another generation of "old white people", and "the new young voting generations" will have the same dreams and aspirations as previous "young voting generations", regardless of skin color. Didn't I hear that the congressional black caucus may soon include a couple of Republicans? How did Nikki Haley do in the recent South Carolina election? How's Bobby Jindal doing in the old Jim Crow South?

The people who do not have time on their side are the race-baiting poverty pimps like valkayec.

@Brigade: "The people who do not have time on their side are the race-baiting poverty pimps like valkayec"

Ah, if only that were true. And I suppose it is, if you're thinking in geological time.

In our life times, there's going to be plenty of leftwards race-baiting, and attempts to frame any narrative involving conservatives, into one of conservatism being an encapsulation of racism, bigotry, and xenophobia, and nothing else. I expect this will be as true 40 years from now as it is today. 400 years from now? Perhaps not so much. ;)

What I wrote about "old white people" had nothing to do with race baiting or xenophobia or ageism. As I wrote, I'm one of those old white people. No, tt had to do with known, much publicized demographics. Are you now saying that someone must be so PC that they can no longer comment on a group's demographics?

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.